As disclosed in the above-referenced patent applications and issued patents, it is generally known to define a font for security applications by creating a bitmap representation of each font character and storing same for use in a variable printing environment, e.g., Variable Data Intelligent Postscript Printware VIPP or Personalized Print Markup Language (PPML) or the like. Examples of such specialty imaging bitmap fonts (SI Fonts) include but are not limited to:                a gloss mark font in which each character is defined against a same-color background grey level, wherein the background and character are defined using respective anisotropic halftone dot structures that allows for human perception of the character at certain viewing angles without being susceptible to useful reproduction by digital or analog copying;        a microtext font in which each character is defined at a size of less than 1 point, i.e., a height of less than about 0.3527 mm so as to be readable only with a loupe or magnifying glass;        a correlation mark font in which the printed characters are visible only when a transparency key (often a 50% checkerboard grid pattern) is overlaid on the page.The above mentioned examples of bitmapped effect fonts for document security—referred to generally in the following description as “SI Fonts” or in some cases as “security mark fonts”—are combined as Specialty Imaging feature in the Xerox Free Flow Variable Imaging Suite. In such case, each character of the SI Font is precisely defined by a bitmap image to ensure proper placement of the ink/toner dots so that the desired effect is assured. In one known arrangement, an SI Font for use in a gloss mark, microtext or correlation mark application is embedded or encapsulated in a PostScript Type 3 font format and saved at the printer, i.e., in the digital front-end (DFE) for use in such printing applications.        
Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a limitation of the above arrangement is that the bitmaps, e.g., embedded in a Type 3 font, are not scalable, rotatable, colorable, or otherwise able to be manipulated due to their specialized nature to create optical effects or other special characteristics. Users, however, are accustomed to modify attributes in the manner of an outline font such as TrueType font (TTF) or other outline (curve) based font, e.g., Adobe Type 1 font. Instead, each SI Font type (e.g., micro_f6-5, NeueClassic_GL) and size (0.84 point, 10 point, 12 point, 14 point) and must be pre-defined and pre-stored as a new SI Font for use as needed during printing operations. Correspondingly, a user of a document production application desiring to use one of these SI Fonts in an electronic document must be sufficiently knowledgeable in these font details in order to select the correct type and size and color of font for insertion into a security mark field. This can be confusing in that gloss mark and other security marks fonts are often sized in fractional point sizes and with other attributes that could be misunderstood by users. If a variable text security mark field of a document is set to receive a security mark string of characters of a given font type, font size and font color, any deviation of the SI Font selection by the user could cause the security mark to be ineffectively printed. For example, if a security mark field of a document is set to receive 18 point security characters, user selection of NeueModem_GL—19.2 font for a security mark character string (a gloss mark font based upon NeueModem font sized at 19.2 point) would result in moiré in the rendered output.
In addition, not all input font sizes can be realized as output SI Font characters due to stitching and alignment requirements. Using the GlossMark™ Font as exemplar, FIG. 1 is one example of a table relating given input font sizes IF in terms of points to gloss mark output font sizes OF in terms of points (although actual character height is not changed, bounding boxes and other font metrics are changed leading to point size variations from input to output). It can be seen that this point size variation is significant and will lead to rendered output problems if not properly resolved.
These issues and idiosyncrasies are a main reason why use of gloss mark and other Shave heretofore been best suited for VIPP or PPML user applications in which a single field is automatically associated with the correct pre-defined font settings that are not readily variable by a user so that the specified security mark text/string is rendered correctly when printed. Accordingly, a need has been realized for a VIPP or PPML application in which a user is seemingly given wide latitude and control of font selection for security mark text in a simplified manner that allows the user to differentiate and easily manipulate the security mark text on his/her computer screen/monitor (referred to herein as a “security mark creation font”, but in which the user specifications are then checked before printing to allow for the appropriate font substitutions, including font size and/or font color substitutions, to be made at print time to select the corresponding SI Font for printing that most closely corresponds to the security mark creation font to ensure properly rendered printed output and the quality of the resulting security mark in the resulting printed document.